Call for photographers - the APUG print sales gallery

[David Henderson]

Sean- any chance of a reply to the issue I raised here yesterday please?

 

[KenM]

Sean- any chance of a reply to the issue I raised here yesterday please?

My personal take is that this isn't an issue, as long as the prints are traditionally created, which you state they are.

Sean, of course, has the last say on this.

I've signed up for the gallery too....

 

[Sean]

My b&w FB prints are made for me . Does this disqualify me from participating in this venture. They are of course entirely analogue.

Hi David, I'm not sure what you mean, sorry.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think he means that he doesn't do his own printing, though I thought at first that he might mean that he only makes prints for himself, which was confusing.

 

[Sean]

I think he means that he doesn't do his own printing, though I thought at first that he might mean that he only makes prints for himself, which was confusing.

Ah, I see. Well, I think if you have the print made then it is a collaboration of sorts so should be listed photographer -john doe printed by- joe bloggs

What do you guys think?

 

[User Removed]

Ah, I see. Well, I think if you have the print made then it is a collaboration of sorts so should be listed photographer -john doe printed by- joe bloggs

What do you guys think?

Good idea. Sorta like the Ansel Adams Special Edition or the Edward Westons printed by Cole. Negative by-XXXXXXX Print by-XXXXXXX.

I dont think there is a problem with it. Its still a traditional silver print, and if you have good quality work...then by all means!

 

[Sean]

I think the bottom line is that we allow prints made by others. As long as it's a traditional print excluding any digital steps it's fine. If the artist wants to credit the printer they can, if not it's no big deal to me, their choice really..

 

[David Henderson]

Thank you all for the feedback. The reason I raised the issue ( which I agree isn't much of a question elsewhere) is the following form of words in the welcome section.

"All works are handcrafted photographs produced by the artists"

and I simply did not wish to behave deceptively, albeit that they are handcrafted and they are produced to my detailed brief /direction.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you all for the feedback. The reason I raised the issue ( which I agree isn't much of a question elsewhere) is the following form of words in the welcome section.

"All works are handcrafted photographs produced by the artists"

and I simply did not wish to behave deceptively, albeit that they are handcrafted and they are produced to my detailed brief /direction.

Possibly you could change it to something like "All works are handcrafted photographs produced by or under the direction of the artists".

 

[jd callow]

Possibly you could change it to something like "All works are handcrafted photographs produced by or under the direction of the artists".

Excellent suggestion.

 

[Anupam Basu]

I just signed up and the gallery seems to have great potential. It'll probably be a while before I submit prints, but thought I'd ask a couple of questions anyway.

Would the images displayed in the gallery need to be scans from the print or would a direct scan from a negative do for display purposes?

Secondly, when one says archival or fine art print, does it imply FB? I ask because even though I have used FB paper in my university darkroom a few times I find variable contrast RC paper much more easier to work with at home (and I produce much better prints when I am not paying by the hour ... LOL)

Thanks.
-A

 

[ggriffi]

I too have just signed up. I am probably about 6 moinths away from having prints though.

g

 

[User Removed]

I just signed up and the gallery seems to have great potential. It'll probably be a while before I submit prints, but thought I'd ask a couple of questions anyway.

Would the images displayed in the gallery need to be scans from the print or would a direct scan from a negative do for display purposes?

Secondly, when one says archival or fine art print, does it imply FB? I ask because even though I have used FB paper in my university darkroom a few times I find variable contrast RC paper much more easier to work with at home (and I produce much better prints when I am not paying by the hour ... LOL)

Thanks.





The thing is posting negative scans, rather then scans from the real print, is that a negative scan is usually quite different then a scan from the real print. What if you decide to do some burning and dodging on the print? Whoever is purchasing the image would be quite unhappy to recieve a print that looks totally different then the one they were purchasing on APUG.

If you are printing RC at home, there is no reason why you cannot be printing fiber. I can almost promise you that EVERYONE on APUG would rather purchase a fiber print over a RC print. RC are not archival, not the best quality, and are CHEEP. Sometimes producing "fine art prints" requires abit of work, and taking the easy way out, by print on RC, is NOT the way to go. I suggest you list only fiber prints, because not many would be interested in a RC print.

Ryan McIntosh

 

[removed account4]

SNIP:

If you are printing RC at home, there is no reason why you cannot be printing fiber. I can almost promise you that EVERYONE on APUG would rather purchase a fiber print over a RC print. RC are not archival, not the best quality, and are CHEEP. Sometimes producing "fine art prints" requires abit of work, and taking the easy way out, by print on RC, is NOT the way to go. I suggest you list only fiber prints, because not many would be interested in a RC print.

Ryan McIntosh

ryan

according to the folks at kodak, rc paper -- they claim --- is just as ( or they have even told me *MORE* ) archival than fiber based prints.

it all depends how it is processed so YMMV

-john

 

[Steve Sherman]

Hi Sean,

I should have posted before now.

I would like to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity however, I am in the middle of a new home / darkroom being built which is still months away. Being one of the first photographers you contacted about this idea I would still like to be included at a later date.

It would be impossilbe for me to deliever any prints at this point if any were sold therefore I have not submited my name or work as of this date.

Please keep me in mind.

Regards, Steve Sherman

 

[User Removed]

SNIP:



ryan

according to the folks at kodak, rc paper -- they claim --- is just as ( or they have even told me *MORE* ) archival than fiber based prints.

it all depends how it is processed so YMMV

-john

Your taking the word of a company that got out of the B+W paper business. If RC prints were just as good and archival...then why are more people not printing on it? Also...Why do several RC prints that I own, that are only about 5-10 years old...turning colors. They were processed corrected! Hmmm...

Fiber is the way to go, if you want your prints to look good and last an extended period of time.

 

[Foto Ludens]

I agree that fiber is the way to go. The RC issue may be debated at a later date, but as a new venture I would suggest sticking to the safe and agreed upon fiber.

As for the neg scan issue, I personally think its a bad idea. Papers tend to "see" the negative quite differently from scanners, and we want the scans to represent the prints as closely as possible.

André

 

[Ole]

All right - I've signed up too.

Will get to printing soon, we've finally hit a calm period at work so I may actually get some time in the darkroom this winter.

As to FB/RC I'll be printing on FB. But I have 10+ years old RC prints at home that show absolutely no deterioration, including one that's been framed and displayed since 1993 (it's in my gallery, the "non-overworked location). I also have others that lasted less than one year, so there's no guarantee.

 

[Eric Jones]

I have boxes full of 15 year old RC prints that look identical to the day I printed them in High School. I would personally use FB for fine art prints but I think that to say RC should not be included is short sighted. Whoever is selling the print should certainly state what paper it is printed on and any additional info, toning, etc. Then the customer can base their purchase on all relevant factors that pertain to them. If I saw a great image that I would like on my wall, the fact that it is RC would not dissuade me from buying.

 

[Sean]

50 signed up so far with 21 photographers selling 122 prints. Looks like we're on our way to building a great collection of work! I might just give initial signups 1 more week then set the opening day for the following weekend. This will also give me some time to iron out the remaining issues..

 

[FrankB]

I'd be very interested in this at some point in the future, Sean. As yet I haven't built up a sufficient body of work to participate. (My skills could use a little sharpening too!)

 

[colrehogan]

I'd be very interested in this at some point in the future, Sean. As yet I haven't built up a sufficient body of work to participate. (My skills could use a little sharpening too!)

I would also be interested at some point in the future, Sean; I feel that I haven't built up a large enough body of work with sufficient variety to participate yet. Hope to rectify that soon.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hi Sean...I just signed up I couldn't be more jazzed about this!

Since I've signed up can I offer an idea? When you click on the different categories or galleries, how about just one image (chosen by each photographer) pops up instead of how it works now?

Murray

 

[photomc]

I would also be interested at some point in the future, Sean; I feel that I haven't built up a large enough body of work with sufficient variety to participate yet. Hope to rectify that soon.

Feel the same way Diane and Frank....in fact wonder how many others would signup except for feeling that either there is not a large enough body of work or that our work is just not quite up to the lavel we feel is appropriate for the sales gallery?

 

[Jim Chinn]

Is there a minimum number of images that one must have?